Bolivia has had more military coups than any other nation in the world. Hugo Banzer (1971-1978) and Luis García Meza (1980-1981) were the most notorious Bolivian dictators in the Twentieth Century. More than 30 years after restoration civilian rule, however, victims of political violence still await justice. Unlike neighboring Chile and Argentina, which initiated some legal action against those involved, impunity continues in Bolivia. The military has refused access to documents from the dictatorship years; successive administrations have made minimal effort to pressure the military and have dragged their feet on the reparation process.

In a decision that ignored a 41-year-old precedent and American obligations under international law, a United States appeals court has ruled that American civilians who are tortured by the American military cannot recover damages from the people responsible. Related

Connect With Us on Twitter For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT. The 8-to-3 ruling by the full United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned an important ruling last year by a three-judge panel of the same court, which held that two Americans who say they were tortured by American military forces in Iraq could sue former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for violating their constitutional rights. That ruling relied on a landmark 1971 ruling by the Supreme Court known as Bivens, under which government officials could be held accountable for the intentional mistreatment of American citizens, even if that conduct happened in a war zone. Reversing that decision, the full court’s majority incorrectly joined the Fourth Circuit and the District of Columbia Circuit in rejecting damage suits against American officials based on torture claims. But its ruling was much broader and a lot worse. The court held that all military personnel are exempt from civil liability for breaching civilians’ rights. “Unless there is a right of action against soldiers and their immediate commanders,” it said, “there cannot be a right of action for damages against remote superiors such as former Secretary Rumsfeld.” The majority talked derisively about lawsuits causing “other problems, including diverting cabinet officers’ time from management of public affairs to the defense of their bank accounts.” It is a bizarre argument for a cabinet officer who developed policies that permitted torture. Mr. Rumsfeld and other defendants made an argument limited by place: it was in a war zone that no government or military employee could be sued for torture. The Seventh Circuit ruling has no limit. Instead, as a dissent in the case explained, “We leave citizens legally defenseless to serious abuse or worse by their own government.” In 2006, the United Nations asked the United States how it would meet its obligations under a treaty to enforce the international law against torture. The State Department said American law provides redress, including by allowing plaintiffs to sue “federal officials directly for damages under provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” That is no longer true in cases like this one in the Seventh Circuit. The military often prosecutes its own malefactors, but if it does not, the federal courts should be available to protect American liberty. Foreign citizens can sue foreign officials under American law. Americans can sue foreign officials. But in the Seventh Circuit, covering Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, Americans are the only citizens who have no remedy under American law against American officials allegedly responsible for torture.

Case Inspired Oscar-Winning Film "Missing"- Move Believed to Be First Time Foreign Country Seeks Extradition of High-Ranking U.S. Military Official in Human Rights Case

October 18, 2012, NEW YORK - In a groundbreaking development, the Supreme Court of Chile has approved a request by an investigating judge to extradite retired U.S. Naval Captain Ray E. Davis for his role in the killings of two U.S. citizens, Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. Davis headed the U.S. military mission at the embassy in Santiago during the 1973 military coup. Horman and Terrugi were secretly arrested, detained and executed by the Chilean military in the days following the coup, and Davis is accused of having provided information to Chilean intelligence on the two men. The request to extradite Davis came as part of a lawsuit brought in Chile by Charles Horman's widow, Joyce Horman.The murder of the two young Americans in the national soccer stadium became a symbol of the brutality of the Pinochet regime which tortured, disappeared, and killed thousands of Chileans in the days and months following the coup.In 1977, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Horman that charged former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other high-ranking U.S. officials with complicity in the murder of Charles Horman. The U.S. denied any role in Horman's death, but those denials were undermined by the emergence of a 1976 State Department memo that the case involved "negligence on our part, or worse, complicity in Horman's death." At the same time, the memo also indicated the State Department should refute any allegation implicating U.S. officials.While the suit helped to uncover information regarding the role of the Pinochet regime and the U.S. Embassy in the Horman case, it was ultimately dismissed without prejudice because the U.S. government frustrated attempts to conduct discovery on grounds of national security.Ms. Horman, who is currently out of the country, eventually filed suit in Chile with the assistance of her Chilean attorney, Sergio Corvalan, and Peter Weiss, a vice president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.Said Peter Weiss, "It is gratifying that, while our own government invoked the state secrets doctrine in the U.S. case, the investigating judge in the Chilean case spent years of determined effort to get at the truth. This may yet turn out to be a fitting sequel to the movie 'Missing'," which was based on the Horman case.For more information about the U.S. lawsuit, visit CCR's Horman v. Kissinger<http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/past-cases/horman-v.-kissinger> case page.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org<http://www.ccrjustice.org/>. Follow @theCCR.

BY Elizabeth Briggs, Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Posted on September 10, 2012For decades, the Argentine human rights group, Madres de Plaza de Mayo (Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo), has been respected for its work bearing witness to the thousands of disappearances during the Dirty War (1976-1983). In recent years the Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo, a faction of the original group led by Hebe de Bonafini, has sparked significant controversy because of her divisive comments on topics ranging from September 11 to anti-Semitism. Most significantly, the recent embezzlement scandal involving the organization’s housing program as well as Bonafini’s possible involvement in illegal activities threatens to destroy the reputation of the group and harm its political allies. Source: El Noticialista

History The Madres de Plaza de Mayo’s crusade for human rights began in April 1977 during Argentina’s Dirty War when 14 mothers of disappeared individuals began regular protests in the Plaza de Mayo in front of the presidential palace. Their courage in the face of the brutal military junta inspired other women with disappeared children to join the demonstrations. As their numbers steadily grew, the Madres gained worldwide renown for their distinctive white kerchiefs embroidered with the names of their children–a symbolic invocation of their disappeared offspring– and their daring to stand up to the ruling junta. The Madres claim that approximately 30,000 people kidnapped by the government remain unaccounted for, including 500 babies. The protests have continued on a weekly basis even though the junta fell in 1983. In 1986, the Madres split into two distinct factions: the Madres de Plaza de Mayo-Linea Fundadora (Founding Line) and the Asociación Madres de Plaza de Mayo. The Linea Fundadora has focused on bringing the Dirty War perpetrators to justice as well as discovering remains and identifying those children who were adopted by officials and junta allies. The Asociación faction, led by Hebe de Bonafini, has become much more political, working to uphold what they consider to be the agenda of the disappeared. To further this goal, they have established a newspaper, radio station and a university. In recent years, they have taken their children’s socialist dreams to the next level by managing a government-funded housing program named Sueños Compartidos (Shared Dreams).Controversial Statements In recent years, Bonafini has made many controversial statements that contradict the Madres’ stated mission to protect human rights. Though Bonafini’s anti-American sentiments resulting from the U.S. support of the military junta are widely known, her statements regarding the September 11 attacks shocked many. After the attacks she asserted, “When the attack happened I was in Cuba visiting my daughter, and I felt happiness. It didn’t hurt me at all, because, as I always say in my speeches, our dead children will be avenged the day when people, any people, are happy.” [1] Additionally, she has displayed her anti-Semitism, attacking respected Argentine journalist Horacio Verbitsky for criticizing the Asociación, saying he “is a servant of the United States. He receives a salary from the Ford Foundation, and in addition to being a Jew, is totally pro-North American.” [2] Under her leadership, the Asociación has also admiringly published a collection of writings by Saddam Hussein that ignored his major human rights atrocities simply because of his disdain for the U.S. With Bonafini’s problematic principles guiding the organization, the Asociación has practiced selective indignation regarding human rights violations and compromised the Madres’ moral authority as voice for human rights. Source: MercoPressKirchner Connection The Asociación has maintained a close, mutually- beneficial alliance with the administrations of both former President Nestor Kirchner and current President Christina Fernández de Kirchner ever since Bonafini was invited to the Casa Rosada following Nestor Kirchner’s inauguration in 2003. At first, the alliance with an internationally renowned human rights group like the Asociación gave the Kirchners some credibility on the humanitarian front both domestically and internationally, even when their administrations became embroiled in human rights controversies. During battles against the media and farmers, Hebe de Bonafini adamantly defended the government’s measures. Meanwhile, the Asociación has prospered. In 2005, the Argentine Supreme Court, consisting primarily of Nestor Kirchner era appointees, upheld Congress’s repeal of the amnesty laws protecting military officials who participated in the Dirty War, a long-term goal of the Asociación. As a result, in 2006 the Asociación faction of the Madres announced that they would cease their biweekly protests, as they no longer viewed the Argentine government as an enemy. [3]The Architecture of a Scandal In 2008, the Asociación founded Sueños Compartidos, a housing program for low-income residents that has grown rapidly into the second largest construction company in Argentina. The company has received between $150 and $300 million [USD] in public funding for this project, which was primarily run by Sergio Schoklender whose dark past hardly reflected the organization’s purported ideals. At age 23, Schoklender was convicted of double patricide along with his brother Pedro in 1981 in one of Argentina’s most famous murder cases and was sentenced to life in prison. Bonafini befriended Schoklender while he was still in prison and he began working for the Asociación in 1995, prior to his release later that year. He quickly ascended the organization’s ranks to become Bonafini’s right hand man and the company’s chief financial officer. The pair grew so close that Bonafini reportedly thought of him as an adopted son, referring to him as “mi hijo.” For the construction of much of the company’s low-income housing, Sueños Compartidos contracted out a significant portion of its operations to Meldorek SA, a construction firm of which Schoklender conveniently owned 90 percent, with the remaining 10 percent belonging to the pilot of his private plane. [4] Schoklender, of course, reaped benefits of this arrangement and flaunted his financial gains, purchasing several new cars, including a Ferrari and a Porsche, a yacht, two planes, and country estates. Meldorek now faces accusations of overcharging, demanding $40,000 USD for a home that other builders claim only costs $25,000 USD to build. Though one would think that overcharging would at least contribute to an expedited construction process, the company builds homes at a near glacial pace, with only 18 of 500 houses in the Chaco province completed after a year. [5] On May 8, 2011, Schoklender left the Asociación, claiming that the project was no longer compatible with his personal interests. Others claim, however, that Bonafini forced him out due to his financial mismanagement and questionable business practices. Because of his alleged embezzlement, racketeering, and money laundering, Schoklender now faces charges of illicit enrichment and misappropriation of public funds. As public scrutiny of the organization has increased, Hebe de Bonafini and the current Kirchner administration, both having participated in the creation of Sueños Compartidos, have attempted to avoid becoming embroiled in the controversy by portraying Schoklender as a dastardly young criminal who took advantage of a group of innocent elderly women. However, Norberto Oyarbide, the judge presiding over the case and long-time critic of both Kirchner administrations, brought Nestor and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner up on corruption charges in 2008 and indicated that Bonafini may be implicated for the misuse of funds. Bonafini has denied any involvement in the scandal, calling the accusations against her “bullshit.” [6] Pablo Schoklender, Sergio’s brother and a former employee of the Asociación, has publically called Bonafini a liar, saying that she undoubtedly knew what was happening within the organization. He described how, “The person who signs the checks, the person who keeps talking about the Government is Hebe. After laying me off, the person who is in charge of signing all the checks is Hebe, she can’t not know what is going on”. [7] On June 25, Sergio also insisted in a court hearing that Bonafini managed the whole entity and was well aware of the embezzlement. [8] Source: Ultima HoraDisassociation from the Asociación This recent scandal has severely harmed the already damaged reputation of the Asociación in Argentina and many have distanced themselves from the once highly regarded Madres. The leader of the Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Estela de Carlotto, has taken vigorous efforts to differentiate her group from the Asociación, reiterating that hers is an entirely separate entity. Carlotto also voiced her fervent belief that Bonafini must have known about the embezzlement due to her meticulous control of the organization. Recently, Abel Fatala, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s undersecretary of public works, has been quick to point out that the federal construction funds were granted to municipalities who then contracted directly with the Asociación, statements indicative of Fernandez’s desire to separate herself from this blossoming scandal. Most Argentines have already lost confidence in the Asociación, with a 2011 poll showing that 53 percent feel the scandal is a serious issue that will have far-reaching consequences not merely limited to the Asociación and 67% believe it will jeopardize the current government. [9] The Asociación has long been viewed as a prestigious human rights group fighting for the justice for the disappeared children. However, Hebe de Bonafini’s controversial comments and the recent massive construction scandal threaten the reputation and once noble legacy of this organization. Their reputation could potentially be salvaged if Bonafini was willing to retire from the organization, although this is unlikely due to her firmly held prejudices and her stranglehold on the organization. If Bonafini does not remove herself from the Asociación, Cristina Fernández will be forced to distance herself further from this formerly revered organization in order to protect her own reputation and popularity. Elizabeth Briggs, Research Associate at Council on Hemispheric AffairsPlease accept this article as a free contribution from COHA, but if re-posting, please afford authorial and institutional attribution. Exclusive rights can be negotiated. [1] Bennett, Carlos. University of Texas, “Madres de Plaza de Mayo.” Accessed July 26, 2012. [2] Marchesi, Aldo. Social Science Research Council, “”The War Against Terrorism” and Collective Memory in Uruguay and Argentina.” Accessed July 26, 2012. [3] Clarírn, “Las Madres de Plaza de Mayo realizaron la última Marcha de la Resistencia.” Last modified January 26, 2006. Accessed July 26, 2012. http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2006/01/26/um/m-01130827.htm. [4] La Nacion, “Claves para entender el caso.” Accessed July 26, 2012. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1379872-claves-para-entender-el-caso. [5] Moffett, Matt. The Wall Street Journal, “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576386344164560756.html.” Last modified June 16, 2011. Accessed July 26, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576386344164560756.html. [6] de Carlos, Carmen. ABC Internacional, “La Estafa de las Madres de Mayo.” Last modified June 16, 2011. Accessed July 26, 2012. http://www.abc.es/20110616/internacional/abcp-estafa-madres-mayo-20110616.html. [7] Buenos Aires Herald, “‘Bonafini is a liar and needs to clarify many things,’ Pablo Schoklender.” Last modified July 7, 2011. Accessed July 26, 2012. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/105544/bonafini-is-a-liar-and-needs-to-clarify-many-things-pablo-schoklender-. [8] Buenos Aires Herald, “Schoklender insists Bonafini ‘managed’ organization’s funds.” Last modified June 25, 2012. Accessed July 26, 2012. http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/104521/schoklender-insists-bonafini-managed-organizations-funds. [9] La Nacion, “Claves para entender el caso.” Accessed July 26, 2012. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1379872-claves-para-entender-el-caso.

A judge has ordered the arrest of eight retired Chilean police and military officials in connection with the 1985 disappearance and kidnapping of Boris Weisfeiler, a Pennsylvania State University mathematician who disappeared while hiking in Chile during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet. The New York Timesreports that Judge Jorge Zepeda said in his order that members of a police patrol arrested Mr. Weisfeiler in an area near the Chilean border with Argentina during the first week of January 1985. The judge said the officers then covered up the arrest by claiming that Mr. Weisfeiler, who was 43 at the time, had drowned. The judge’s order did not include murder charges or address the details of the professor’s presumed death, according to the Times.Chronicle of Higher Education, August 22, 2012